Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

5,015 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY Civil Action No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner Pete51p, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby requests this Court to issue relief consistent with habeas remedies under law. Habeas Corpus proceedings governed and recognized pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 54(a)(1)(1). CUSTODY 1. At the time of the filing of this action, Petitioner is/was in the custody of Ridgeway County Corrections, with his chief place of detention at the Ridgeway County Detention Center located in Palmer, Ridgeway 33328. JURISDICTON 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Ridgeway. 3. Pursuant to 1 R. Stat. § 2210, the Superior Court has the ability to hear petitions for habeas corpus. PETE51P, Petitioner, v. MAXTHATZOMBIE, in his official capacity as Respondent. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. On or about March 1, 2024, Petitioner was driving around the City of Palmer. 5. While driving, Petitioner approached a traffic stop. The scene consisted of several vehicles including a taxi who was “boxed” in. 6. Petitioner drove beside the taxi, informing them that they were boxed in to prevent any accidents. While beside the taxi, Petitioner was not blocking the flow of any traffic behind his vehicle. 7. After speaking to the driver of the taxi, Petitioner reversed and parked behind him. 8. Once he parked, Respondent got out of his patrol vehicle, pulled Petitioner out of his car, and detained him. 9. Respondent informed Petitioner that he was “obstructing traffic,” noting that it is a crime. Subsequently, Respondent drove Petitioner to the Palmer Police Station and booked him for Obstruction of Traffic. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Habeas Corpus Claim – 1 R. Stat. § 2210 CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS 10.Pursuant to 1 R. Stat. § 2210, an individual may petition this Court for habeas relief. Section 2210 creates a special “cause of action” for habeas proceedings. 11.In reviewing habeas petitions, this Court must determine “whether the police were legally entitled to make [an] arrest — that is, the police either had a judicial warrant ordering an arrest, or the police had probable cause that a crime was committed.” See In re ZachCasisbeast, RSC-CV-367 (Rd. Sup. Ct. 2022). Indeed, If the arrest was not lawful at the outset, “the inquiry ends there; the record must be removed.” Id. 12.The habeas standard is such that a “reasonable and well-informed jury could not convict the petitioner in a hypothetical trial if they were aware of those facts, and those facts were admissible evidence.” Id. Petitioner unequivocally satisfies this test. 13.First, Respondent was not justified in making the arrest because he lacked probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Petitioner was charged with Obstruction of Traffic for briefly speaking to another driver while in the road. At the time of this conversation, no flow of traffic is seen and there was no obstruction to the same. 14.To constitute Obstruction of Traffic, an individual must “prevent[] motor vehicles from passing freely along a roadway” Rid. Traff. C. § 7.23. As shown in the attached exhibits, not only was there no traffic at the scene, but Petitioner was not obstructing the flow of traffic in a way that would have been unavoidable if there was traffic. As such, Respondent lacked probable cause to believe that Petitioner was obstructing the flow of traffic. 15.In the eye of the law, “unconstitutional arrests are unreasonable seizures of the person that violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” See Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 577 (1979); see e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. (1968). 16.By way of interpretation, an unconstitutional arrest is one that is made without probable cause. See Clay v. Conlee, 815 F.2d 1164, 1168 (8th Cir. 1987) (“[t]he Constitution prohibits only arrests that are not based on probable cause.”) 17.The arrest is unlawful as the arresting officer could not have reasonably concluded that Petitioner was obstructing traffic. Therefore, like all unlawful arrests, “the record must be removed.” ZachCasisbeast, supra. On these grounds, it is concluded that no reasonable person (the jury) would convict Petitioner because the statutory requirements of the offense—preventing vehicles from advancing forward on a roadway—is neither satisfied nor appropriate when a police officer arrests an individual for simply stopping on a roadway for a brief encounter. WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands relief. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Petitioner requests that the Court grant the following relief: i. Issue a permanent injunction ordering immediate reversal and vacatur of the criminal record stemming from the Obstruction of Traffic charge issued on or about March 2, 2024, by Respondent; Dated: March 2, 2024 Palmer, Ridgeway. Respectfully Submitted. /s/ S. Stickza Stickza, Esq. Counsel of Record Cohn, Cicero, & Goodrich LLC Suite 1B, Palmer Suites Palmer, RW 27841 (111) 222-3333 [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner

Petition_for_Writ_of_Habeas_Corpus_-_Pete51p.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record